Print

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

[Derakon]

Mood modding is, to my knowledge, not possible.

Your best bet for controlling your dwarves' moods is simply to limit their options to get happy moods. Make just plump helmets, make them drink just plump helmet wine. Don't give them beds; make a barracks on a soil level so they always sleep in the dirt. They'll still get happy from talking to friends or being satisfied at work, but the negative thoughts from the above should cancel them out pretty well. If you find a dwarf that's too happy, you can either repeatedly draft him, or assign pets to him and then kill the pets.

[Quietust]

Encouraging fell/macabre moods is a bit dangerous - in order to get one, the dwarf has to be on the verge of throwing a tantrum, so if you want everyone to be capable of a fell mood, well, all you need to do is start a tantrum spiral.

[assimilateur]

Looks like it's barely gonna be worth it then. And going over the top and causing tantrums just for the sake of getting a fell or macabre mood doesn't make much sense either. Thanks for the advice all the same.

[Grendus]

Bring no cats. Let the vermin run loose, chances are at least a few of your dwarves will be plagued by vermin they hate.

Create a barracks with no beds. Let them sleep on the floor.

Create a very large meeting hall. This reduces the chances of them actually interacting with each other.

Basic, low value food and low value booze. If you fancy above-ground farming, prickle berries are your best bet. Value 2 food with value 1 booze, you dwarves will be miserable. Even better, produce only the occasional barrel to keep their alcohol dependency at bay and make them drink murky water.

Note that this will make your fortress more threatened by tantrum spirals. Losing one dwarf to tragedy could cause the other 6 to tantrum all at once. Good luck.

[dakenho]

Well given the requirements for moods on the wiki, the more dwarfs you have the more likely you are to have one that qualifies for a mood.  So limiting the number of dwarfs in a fortress can lead to less moods.
In order for a dwarf to be struck with a strange mood, three conditions must be met:
•   There is no currently active strange mood,
•   The maximum number of artifacts is not met,
•   There are at least 20 eligible dwarves (see below).
If all three of these conditions are true, the game may trigger a strange mood according to the frequency.
Eligibility
The deciding factor for eligibility is a dwarf's actual profession.Thus, dwarves may enter strange moods regardless of what skills they have or don't have, so long as they are of an acceptable profession. Dwarves who have already created an artifact are not eligible to create another, and since every mood ends in either an artifact or death, every dwarf may enter at most one mood. Dwarves who have obtained one or more legendary skills without creating artifacts may enter strange moods.
Appointed nobles may enter moods as per their default profession, but immigrant nobles are not eligible for moods. That includes:
Advisor, Baron/ess, Baron/ess Consort, Count/ess, Countess Consort, Duke/Duchess, Duke/Duchess Consort, Dungeon Master, Hammerer, King/Queen, King/Queen Consort, Philosopher, and Tax Collector.
Further, dwarfs with a military profession other than "Recruit" can not enter moods. Incidental military skills make no difference - eligibility (and weighting) depends purely on the actual profession, as listed at the time. Military professions include:
Axedwarf, Axe Lord, Champion, Crossbowdwarf, Elite Crossbowdwarf, Hammerdwarf, Hammer Lord, Macedwarf, Mace Lord, Marksdwarf, Elite Marksdwarf, Speardwarf, Spearmaster, Swordsdwarf, Swordmaster, Wrestler, and Elite Wrestler.
Babies may not enter moods.
Any other profession is eligible to enter a mood, but not all have the same chance to enter a mood...
So back to my point if you have limited manpower you may not have 20 eligible dwarfs

[quinnr]

Don't give them wine, make yer dwarves drink water...that's why I was worried about getting Fell moods.

[assimilateur]

Don't give them wine, make yer dwarves drink water...that's why I was worried about getting Fell moods.

I might do that if I'm ever bored enough, or otherwise determined to finally see those fell and macabre moods. Right now I'm reluctant to do so both for reasons of role-playing (I always care for the quality of my fort's catering; in fact, usually my starting seven pretty much specialize in the food-related skills, but I'm pondering a change of style in that respect) and efficiency (dwarfs drinking water don't work as fast as when they booze up, right?).

[Count Dorku]

Excuse the thread necromancy, but my questions are on topic, so I guess asking them here makes sense. I'll be starting my first fort in almost half a year tomorrow, and I need you to refresh my memory:

1. For once, I want to see some fell or macabre moods. Those are only supposed to be possible for unhappy dwarfs, so I need advice on how to... safely and reliably make my dwarfs unhappy. I mean, I don't want to starve them, or perhaps decimate them to have the survivors go fell. Of course, if you knew how to mod this - assuming it was even possible - to make fell and macabre moods trigger the same way as the others, then that would be moot. But I'm assuming this isn't possible.

2. Is it possible to mod the requirements for moods in general, as in how large a pop and fort is required for you to be eligible? I'm gonna be trying to make a fort that's reasonably small, both in manpower and space, but I'm afraid that would make my moods few and far between.

No beds. No booze. Keep an eye on what your dwarves hate, then stick that animal in a cage for them to look at (I once had a dwarf get a negative thought for seeing a toad in a cage - no offence meant, o Great Toady One). Arrange for their pets to be killed, whether by butchery, atomsmasher, or plummet into a handy cavern. Take no steps to fight cave adaptation. You want your dwarves to be sleeping on bare rock while mourning their pets, vomiting profusely when they have to go outside, and drinking nothing but water. They will not be pleased.

[assimilateur]

Take no steps to fight cave adaptation.

I never do that anyway, because I appreciate the comic relief of them vomiting outside.

Anyway, that's sound advice you've given, but I'm not sure how far I wanna go with this. I mean, making no booze seems a bit over the top.

[quinnr]

No booze means no speed...your dwarves will slow down.

[dakenho]

Currently my fortress has no booze, and it has had no booze for several months now, and my dwarfs seem to actually doing alright thought this seems to be a fate worse than death.

[CognitiveDissonance]

To add onto thread, someone said that mood state seems to affect types of moods, and I'd like to confirm that to some extent.

I have a fortress where each dwarf has a bedroom and a tomb (mostly) and they are (almost) all "ecstatic". I have had about 8 "withdraws from society" in a row, once a fey mood, and no possessions.

The chances of that being random are statistically improbable.

[assimilateur]

The chances of that being random are statistically improbable.

Improbably, yes, like 1 in a 1000 perhaps? It's not improbable enough to be convinced of there being a pattern, especially seeing how forts with a majority of ecstatic denizens are all but a rarity, and hence a causative relation between happiness and secretive (or any other) moods would be easily well documented.

In fact, I an give you a counter-example. My last fort (or perhaps several last ones, but let me base my observations on my last one, since that one I remember relatively well), called Snackmachines was also populated mainly by ecstatic dwarfs. Everyone had a room, there were no deaths (I save-scummed when needed) and the catering was legendary. By your hypothesis, my moods should have been mainly secretive ones, or otherwise having between 1/3 and 1/2 of them turn out possessions (sometimes prompting me to save-scum, and even getting a repeated possession once or twice that way), would have been a statistical anomaly.