Print

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

[Cheese]

I feel like a combination of gamist and constructionist. The gamist is my desire to reach the end-game and have an army of legendary adamantine wielders and a massive defence network. After this it's building crazy and fun stuff until something happens that topples my fortress and fighting bitterly for survival or trying to conquer the HFS. I enjoy creating functional structures and solving the problems that come along with them too, which is probably why I prefer gargantuan walls and castles to aesthetic megaprojects.

I could also be simulationist though, as I would like to see the outside world and end-game fleshed out a bit more so that the world my fortress and adventures are set in feels more alive and real, so I can interact with the story of it a bit more but also so that I feel like I have purpose. The simulation side of DF adds something to it that isn't often found in other games, with the generation of everything from climate to the history of a civilisation, and how you can go about making a legendary adventurer.

[tolkafox]

I'm a simulationist, my greatest joy is watching the dwarves go about their daily lives responding to external and internal stimuli. It's nice to order my military to go out and kill the goblins, whether they're steel clad hardened warriors incapable of defeat or new recruits with leather shields and copper weapons where victory is a (bloody) gamble, but watching my hunter trip across a goblin swordsmen from an ambush and putting a bolt in his leg (and head) without my input is infinitely more entertaining. Even if it's an illusion, I like to feel that the dwarf has an interest in self preservation and preservation of the fortress a a whole. Expansion on the dwarven psychology and their ability to interpret and use it would be a plus for me.

I often name the manager/broker/bookkeeper after me and pretend to be him, giving my orders to the fortress via the manager screen and viewing the items through the stocks screen. Obviously I have to break this to mine or build or pull levers, but for the most part it 'immerses' me in the game. I go through each of the dwarves thoughts and try to model the fortress based on their likes/dislikes. Happiness isn't the goal all the time though, it's just as fun watching a dwarf be miserable as it is watching them be ecstatic. 'Breaking' a dwarf is present in most of my games, usually reserved for lawbreakers. How will a dwarf who dislikes kittens, schist, and prickle berries perform locked in a schist room with schist tables and chairs with nothing to eat but prickle berries whilst surrounded by kittens? How will the fortress fare with no beds to sleep on? How will a dwarven mother respond to her two kids and husband being slaughtered by goblins? Waiting for these scenarios to come about naturally only makes them all the better.

Another source of fun in the game comes from learning how the game works. The game was a lot more fun when I didn't know how everything worked, each fortress being an experiment for this new farm crop, or advanced traps, that new workshop floor plan I've been dreaming up. Indeed the main source of stale gameplay comes from me already knowing what I'm doing. Building an efficient fortress is an accomplishment, but the real fun comes from designing the layout for said fortress. I could spend the greater portion of a week designing and redesigning the fortress layout until I found it acceptable, only to have a buzzard raid knock my miner (with his pick) into a lake. All that work lost, but I still found it enjoyable.

[Mike Mayday]

I'm a crossbreed of gamist and simulationist. The most important thing I seek in the game (and any game in fact) is a challenge to my wits. I want to survive (not necessarily win) but BARELY. I want a constant cannonade of problems to solve.
I want to be forced to MANAGE MY RESOURCES, including time. This is an element almost non-existent in present DF, 2-3 months of making rock crafts and you're set for the whole game in terms of trade. I also want more involving tactical combat.
I absolutely do NOT need points, highscores, a straightforward challenge/goal (other than survival). I detest steadily raising challenge curves- this just means the game is boring at the beginning. And I do not want to win due to my understanding of the gameplay mechanisms, I want the GAME to be my challenge, not its inner workings.

[slink]

I am probably a Simulationist, but I especially like DF for the ability to turn off select portions of the simulation when I want to build something so I probably count as a partial Constructionist.  I'm not building for the brag-points, usually, because there is always someone, somewhere, who has done it better before me.  I do like to admire those creations done by others.  I enjoy inventing stories to go along with what happens in my games.  I do not care about high scores, and I don't want a game that forces me to be "challenged" (aka "ground into the dust") when I don't want that.  The last time I wanted a game like that was about 20 years ago, when I played Doom until I died every night when I came home from a job I hated.  I don't have that kind of unhealthy anger anymore and I don't enjoy that sort of game now.

Just as a side comment, I doubt that I will ever play Adventure Mode in DF.  I have spent far too many years playing first-person RPGs for rogue-type games to feel real to me in that mode.  Specifically what I have felt was missing when I tried Adventure Mode in DF was a graphical representation of myself and my equipment.  I have no problem using ASCII graphics in an overhead view for Fortress Mode because that mode is about building a city.  City-builder programs have always been my other favorite type of game, and I am fine with city-builder programs that use schematics for buildings and generalized icons for the inhabitants.

[NotPete]

While I would call myself a Simulationist, I do get bored when I don't have some kind of goal to strive for or something like that. If just survival is the goal, as it is in DF (barring, of course, self imposed challenges), I at least want it to have it be a challenge to survive. I often quit forts when they have reached a plateau, and there is no significant chance of the fort failing.

[Fieari]

I'm a crossbreed of gamist and simulationist. The most important thing I seek in the game (and any game in fact) is a challenge to my wits. I want to survive (not necessarily win) but BARELY. I want a constant cannonade of problems to solve.
I want to be forced to MANAGE MY RESOURCES, including time. This is an element almost non-existent in present DF, 2-3 months of making rock crafts and you're set for the whole game in terms of trade. I also want more involving tactical combat.
I absolutely do NOT need points, highscores, a straightforward challenge/goal (other than survival). I detest steadily raising challenge curves- this just means the game is boring at the beginning. And I do not want to win due to my understanding of the gameplay mechanisms, I want the GAME to be my challenge, not its inner workings.

Agreed!  Although I think having things to work towards other than survive can be nice too, as long as survival is still in question while you're seeking those other goals, and as long as those goals are difficult enough.  Becoming the mountain home is too easy now, for instance (partially because survival is not a threat).  Defeating whole armies is too easy as well.  I could imagine a goal where you are trying to stop armies from passing through, for example, where they don't even stop to try to fight you unless you engage them first, but if they get through they attack another fortress somewhere to the dismay of your civilization.

[hoveringdog]

Mostly simulationist, though I sometimes get the bug to create some huge, improbable construction of some sort. But I do think there is a valid distinction between simulationist and narrativist (simulated detail for the purpose of realism versus simulated detail for the sake of good story generation), and it's the latter that appeals to me more: DF is one of the very few computer games I've played with the potential to generate good stories that aren't part of a pre-scripted plot.

And it's not just the whole grand sweeping history, but the small personal vignettes that occur: In one of my first fortresses, I had a legendary axedwarf killed by a chance blow of a goblin's steel whip, and noticed after the battle was over, that about a half dozen children had gathered near the place where she died, all with the thought "lost a friend to tragedy recently." Turns out she was friends with most of the fort's children, like some kindly old godmother. A minor thing, but after that, I was hooked. Those kind of events are, to me, what makes DF a much superior game to most big-developer endeavors that focus on shiny graphics and tack on an anemic plot as an afterthought.

Those kind of stories to me are the biggest appeal. I appreciate the efforts to add greater depth and complexity to the world, but I appreciate them most when those complexities just add good opportunities to generate narrative without unnecessarily encumbering the game with extraneous detail. I'm perfectly happy if the game hand waves tiny details of alloy composition or animal anatomy as long as it keeps the stories coming.

[rex mortis]

I like clear goals, whether they be given by the game, or something I arbitrarily decide to pursue. But I feel that once the simulation aspect of adventure mode is more complete, there will always be goals after I get started. I do not care for winning conditions though, I like to continue as long as the game/character/fortress interests me. I suppose it would make me a gamist. Often my goal is to become stronger. Whether it be better character statistics or a larger and better armed military. I utterly despise any hard limits on my development. It is not the end result but the process that interests me, and it should preferably not be a grind.

However, I also like immersion in my games. I do not like high score runs and such.

[hawk767]

I think I fall mostly within simulationist in that I really like the complexity of the game and adding more realism through an economy, democracy, and the coming laws system would just make the game that much better.

While I really enjoy building amazing structures and digging out fantastic mines and grand dining halls, I especially like the touch of realism and the time Toady has put into the code to make it that much more realistic. The World gen, the combat system, the creatures having so many variables that make them up and then having the combat reflect all of that. I think that is what makes this game so appealing to me. Just think what complexities an economy and democracy will add? I think having those things be important in the late game are what will really push players, at least me, to strife for a long lasting fort to really take advantage of all the new editions, just to view the amazing complexity at which they are crafted.

[Twilitbeing]

I'm not good at categorizing myself, nor do I typically try.  I think of myself as an engineer, which has elements of all three.  (WARNING:  Unavoidable opinion statement inbound.)

I'm a gamist in that I don't want to lose my fortress, and basic survival is currently just as challenging to me as I like it.  I don't need a predefined goal or "win" condition to keep me motivated; if boredom sets in, I wait for some new project idea to strike me and start another file in the meantime.  I'm still essentially a newbie, and I've always been able to find fresh challenges by simply digging deeper.  For me, the sheer depth of the game is what makes the perma-death bearable:  I can go head-to-head with all manner of deadly stuff, lose several times, and still feel like I've achieved something when I succeed, because all the resources I used up in the process were produced by my fortress.  (This is where I stop short of total munchkinry:  I'll gladly accept losses that I have a legitimate chance of avoiding or recovering from.)

My simulationist nature (normally manifested as a high level of immersion) is probably part of everything I've said so far, although I tend to get frustrated as the logistics become more complex.  However, a lot of my gripes could be solved by other realistic additions - standing task orders ("always smelt X ore in Y stockpile"), more intelligent pathfinding, stuff I'm probably not the first to suggest.  In other words, maintaining basic control of my settlement is the one thing I don't want to constantly fight for.  (Tantrum spirals are the exception, as they represent a managerial epic fail.)  I can see a potential use for the mayor and high-level nobles here, which may well be in the works already.

[tfaal]

Gamist. I like the game when it challenges me, and get bored of it when it doesn't. Stone crafts, easy farming, and lack of sieges make the game boring for me, and frequently keep me from playing it. I would love to see adventurer mode combat have a more gamish rhythm to it. Less pain narcolepsy, more lasting K.O.s. More interesting quests. Less effective armor. Stuff like that.

[Alluvian_Est-Endrati]

I think I fall squarely within the second two categories: Simulationist & Constructionist. Those two sections in Capntastic's OP described how I see DF and currently enjoy playing DF almost perfectly.

About DF currently: In the current version of DF I find I enjoy Fortress mode the most; both in vanilla and with various selected types of mods. I love the challenge and the Fun of designing and building a Fortress, as well as imagining the stories going on behind the base mechanics of what occurs. I love reading LP's and I may try writing up one of my own... eventually.

Most of my thinking (modding, planning, idle thoughts, etc.) that are DF related are focused primarily on Fortress mode. Mods I dream up are generally ones that are Fortress-centric, either introducing new civilizations & critters to wrangle & manage, or as enemies to pop up and offer challenges. I really do love how much customization of the world experience is possible by tweaking world generation and the raws for creatures & entities and such. Loads of possibility here.

In brief, what appeals most (to me) about Fortress mode is the free and open nature it has; deciding on ones own goals and how to best achieve them within certain parameters.

At this time I am not that fond of Adventure mode. From what has been discussed and mentioned thus far in the upcoming update (Necromancers, Tombs, etc.) this aspect of the game will finally (to me at least) have more of a point of playing. Currently I see Adventure mode as simply a hack & slash survival & exploration game; just wandering about looking at different parts of the world... and trying not to die. Can be fun, but needs depth.

About the future of DF: I am very optimistic that both Fortress & Adventure modes will get a lot better over time. I see myself focusing mostly on Fortress mode, with forays into Adventure mode to explore & flesh out worlds more, or as methods to 'set up' sites or locales for use as Fortresses in the future. If a method ever exists to reture a Fortress, I could see doing the same the other way around as well.

While I like the idea of adding more structure to Fortress mode in some way (themed starts, etc.) I do hope that more open styles of play, like those that currently exist, will still be in DF in the future for Fortress mode. Given what I know of the upcoming updates, I feel that Fortress mode will get a lot more interesting and complex, something that I really look forward to. Adding more interesting elements into the simulation will only enhance the experience IMO.

In my opinion the 'future' of Dwarf Fortress really lies with the Simulationist & Constructionist styles of play. This type of gameplay is the bread and butter of the DF experience thus far, and I would like to see more of the same: More complexity, more options, more ways to develop and build upon the worlds that are generated and, most importantly of all, more development that adds to and enhances the Simulation experience and thus which also offers wonderful opportunities to build and develop things as well.

[Eric Blank]

    I've always fit in the constructionist category. If a game doesn't have something for me to mess with to make it my own, you probably won't find me playing it. Dwarf Fortress is amazing in that respect, and obviously I WANT MOAR, but I also heavily favor the simulationist attitude. The Gamist thing I never really got into. Never liked competition much. More possible challenges would be appreciated, I suppose.
    Since I first started following the developement of DF, I've always had this idea that one day it will be possible to take your adventurer from a peasant all the way to the elderly king of a grand new civilization you yourself created, building an amazing capital city at the foot of a semi-circular plateau with sheer cliffs, into which the royal palace, along with a good portion of your populace, is housed (and manage their own housing and living needs, respecting the laws you make.), and where that king may finally retire. His child, or perhaps someone entirely unrelated or even hostile to that civilization, may set out on their own path to greatness. And all the while the world you initially generated has moved forward and never ceased to 'generate' it's history.

But damn that would slaughter anyone's processor/RAM... Oh well; computer technology isn't going to cease developement anytime soon, after all, and hopefully neither will DF.

[Sowelu]

I'd put myself at 60% gamist, 25% simulationist, 15% constructionalist.  I see the "game you can win" element as the most important, while simulation and construction are merely tools that make it complex enough to enjoy.

There's a billion other toys I can create things with, and almost all of them are more portable and easier to show off, as well as longer lasting and less failure-prone (oh god, a troll got into my pump stack).  So, the ability to design my own clever solutions only matters as much as it contributes to being able to play and simulate the things I want to.

I don't design megaprojects for the joy of creation; I design them because I say "this is a goal, and I will win the goal", and then I try to see how fast I can do it, or what limitations I can impose.  I don't want TOO much freedom in the games I play:  If every solution works, then I am not afforded the mental exercise of sifting through them and picking out ideas that won't work.  The more challenging it is to design a functional system, the more I like it.  I liked SpaceChem because it gave me a lot of freedom but, at the end of the day, you had to *win*.  There were multiple solutions, and you could keep hammering out new ways of improving your contraption, but you had a set and challenging goal.  It's close to my epitome of simple games: hard as hell, so brainy it gives me headaches and drives me to drink.

I like restrictions.  Rollercoaster Tycoon or Theme Hospital had some maps that were wide-open "here's very limited guidelines, make a bunch of cash" and they were kind of boring.  But sometimes you couldn't remove any trees or build rollercoasters above a certain height, and sometimes your hospital had constant floods of certain types of cases that came in faster than you could handle them unless you REALLY scrambled...  Those were the best of missions.

I appreciate the way that DF's simulations have become more advanced, as an intellectual exercise, but it doesn't fulfill my "gaming" need as much.  I absolutely play to win...which is why I have a love-hate relationship with The Sims as well (too much freedom = no challenge = no game).

2D was a great game, 3D is a fun sim but not my style.  Adventure mode just isn't the kind of stuff I do.

[Rondol]

I'd call myself a Gamist/Simulationist. I would list constructionist because I would love to build huge gold mausoleums, and giant canyon-straddling castles with built-in self destruct switches; however, I cannot for the life of me stand to play Fortress mode. There's just too much going on, too much micromanaging to handle. So, I will focus on adventure mode as I discuss why I categorize myself as I did.

I call myself a gamist because I *do* see DF as a game. It's a very deep, unfathomably complex game, but a game none-the-less. I wouldn't ever wish for simpler rogue-likier mechanics in the game, but I can't wait until there are more interesting and attainable goals I can set (or have set for me) to achieve. Currently I approach the game with the objective of becoming as powerful as an individual as I can before dying a horrible horrible death (which, being an IVAN player, I came to DF with in the first place). I don't want a numerical score, I don't really want a "win" condition. What I want is to be able to do things other than "get quest, go here, kill this, come back, repeat" and/or "explore aimlessly in the wilderness for anything interesting you might find". I want to build a farmhouse. I want to become a bodyguard for a merchant. I want to enlist as a soldier in an army, and be knighted in the field for my bravery and valor. I want to join a death-worshiping cult, and then disguise myself and slip into the king's palace and slit his throat while he sleeps.

That's where the simulationist comes in. I want to be able to do all this, and more, and I want it to be as real as possible. I want my farm in the woods to gradually grow into a town as my hired farmhands build homes for themselves, the knighted soldier to inspire tales in far-off lands, the assassination of the king to shape the politics of the kingdom. I love being able to hew through a guy's ribs and puncture his lung, to hack off fingers, and so forth. And I want more details. I want it to be a precise simulation of the "real" world, but with gamist goals I can strive towards.