Print

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

[Warlord255]

The qualifiers need some work, but the structure is definitely solid. I would recommend the following;

Reduce the number of highlighted features and/or categorize them; all hair features should go together in a paragraph, as should general-body features (fat, thin, head shape) and general face features. Some minor color-coding would help with this.

It'd also be nice to have differentiation between natural and temporary statuses; i.e. "naturally greasy" or "greasy and unwashed".

Finally, a summary "---is overall ugly/beautiful/etc." would be a good capstone.

[Willfor]

Finally, a summary "---is overall ugly/beautiful/etc." would be a good capstone.

This would probably be in the eye of the beholder. Unless you meant according to the civ entity's definition of beauty?

[Warlord255]

Finally, a summary "---is overall ugly/beautiful/etc." would be a good capstone.

This would probably be in the eye of the beholder. Unless you meant according to the civ entity's definition of beauty?

That old adage nonwithstanding, it'd be a nice generalization to start with and read the rest of the information on. A lot of the jibber-jabber with cheekbones and earlobes confuses me and as the "beholder" I don't know what to think.

Also, am I the only one confused by head-shaved female dwarves with sideburns?

[Granite26]

Finally, a summary "---is overall ugly/beautiful/etc." would be a good capstone.

This would probably be in the eye of the beholder. Unless you meant according to the civ entity's definition of beauty?

That old adage nonwithstanding, it'd be a nice generalization to start with and read the rest of the information on. A lot of the jibber-jabber with cheekbones and earlobes confuses me and as the "beholder" I don't know what to think.

Perhaps, rather than throw out 5-10 qualities at random, create sliders for every quality and only report the 5 farthest from normal.  Presuming humanity's tendancy to think of 'human average' as absolute beauty transfers to other races, 'beautiful' as a trait could be added if there isn't sufficient wierd traits (maybe starting as 'somewhat' beautiful and going from there.)

[LordZorintrhox]

I agree with Granite, here.  That is more or less how it really works: you remember people based on the things that are the furthest from the average (with a little cultural bias added in).  That is why caricatures are recognizable even when they are egregiously distorted; the most non-normal features are the most exaggerated. Furthermore, given Toady's background, he's well equipped to handle something so statistically based.

For bonus points, the "normal" level could be the average level for the fortress, so you'd be recognizing what the dwarves are recognizing.  If everyone in the fortress has a braided mustache, then no one is listed as having one, because that's perfectly normal.

Or you could set that by civ on world gen, so that it is usual for members of The Board of Touring keep their beards braided, but those of The Arrow of Stone usually don't.

What am I saying; do I want the release to be out later?

[Dante]

Even considering what a description of someone really sounds like, these example dwarfs do still seem kind of... stereotyped.
Maybe the adjectives should all be toned down in general. So things that are currently 'somewhat' aren't worth remarking on, and the new minimum variation is described as 'slightly'. Then still use mild qualifiers like 'fairly' further up the scale.

Or, might it be possible that you could choose the level of description you wanted in the init file? So you could change the parameters to [SHOW_BRIEF] or something, and go from Fugly Fortress to Functional Fortress once you had too many dwarves to make it worthwhile.
And on that note, I do agree that at a certain population point, most players will simply never look at any appearances. The ones for whom it'll be really worthwhile is the hermit or seven-dwarf players, or those whose fortress revolves around a single Morul.

Also, it would be cool if the appearances are linked to the attributes enough that number 9, "strapped with massive amounts of muscle and lard", gets strapped with only muscle as he gets stronger or only lard if his constitution/metabolism changes.
...Can dwarfs lose weight? Or is number 9 permanently a barrel body without recourse to slimmercising? Doomed to sit in a corner spooning sweetened kitten fat into his maw and cutting the angular runes 'FAT DWARF' into his body with a +steel razorblade+?

EDIT: Also, number 10 (Bembul) especially likes the colour of her own skin. I find this... worrying.

[smjjames]

Finally, a summary "---is overall ugly/beautiful/etc." would be a good capstone.

This would probably be in the eye of the beholder. Unless you meant according to the civ entity's definition of beauty?

That old adage nonwithstanding, it'd be a nice generalization to start with and read the rest of the information on. A lot of the jibber-jabber with cheekbones and earlobes confuses me and as the "beholder" I don't know what to think.

Also, am I the only one confused by head-shaved female dwarves with sideburns?

huh? All the females are beardless, what's to be confused about?

Anyways, I wonder if some of the stuff like kinesthetic sense (hand-eye coordination), spatial sense, analytical abilities, etc will have an effect. The last one has a description saying 'has a very good sense of the position of his body', I don't know whether to take that as bieng suggestive or that he would make a really good wrestler/soldier.

Number 9 also sounds like a bit of a musclebrain.

[Warlord255]

And on that note, I do agree that at a certain population point, most players will simply never look at any appearances. The ones for whom it'll be really worthwhile is the hermit or seven-dwarf players, or those whose fortress revolves around a single Morul.

One can argue the intended purpose of the physical descriptions all day long, but at the end of the day it boils down to "it should be there". Keep in mind that scars will have an impact on the descriptions, and everyone will be glad to have a list of wicked scars to read about.

That said, I'll be using the descriptions to help me paint a good image of my champions and notable craftsdwarves/nobles. Hopefully the final form will be brief enough to allow quick scanning for less important dwarves.

[Hectonkhyres]

Agreeing with Warlord here. While I don't give a flying fornication what Soapmaker #14 looks like, I am going to know the faces of the important dwarves by heart: Legendaries, great warriors, the nobles whom I am plotting to kill, the village cripple whose tragic antics I am compelled to point and laugh at. It will help give them more personality.

Wouldn't you want to know what Ironblood looks like?

[Walliard]

Wouldn't you want to knno what Ironblood looks like?

The knowledge would destroy you.

[RavingManiac]

Methinks the bell-curve ought to be a bit narrower for traits and facial features. After reading the descriptions, I ended up picturing an entire fortress full of deformed freaks.

[Hectonkhyres]

The knowledge would destroy you.

I have now concocted the theory that the Necronomicon was in fact fashioned by Ironblood himself out of his own flesh. Its not a book of arcane lore: its his diary.

Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Ironblood Nist Akath wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Ia Ia Ironblood Fhtagn!

[Dawnkeeper]

After having a look at Toadys news post I get the feeling that the newest fetish is for olivine 

[smjjames]

And what was the old fetish? Microcline? At least olivine isn't a eye blinding color. Plus I like green anyhow.

[skaltum]

And what was the old fetish? Microcline? At least olivine isn't a eye blinding color. Plus I like green anyhow.

really? i thought it was orthoclase